Hand Gun's [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Sentinel

02-08-2004, 02:29 PM

Well as stated there is a bill before congress that would allow just this. And as already stated it is not a democrat or republican bill because there is opposition and support on both sides of the aisle.

I find another good website for such info is packing.org. It is intended for civilians but remember, while out of your state you are a civilian.

As far as carrying I would look up the specific laws in the state you intend to visit. If you have a CCW in your home state you might be able to carry in another state under that states reciprocity law. I know that I now have a Florida CCW and as such there are numerous states that will honor it.

And while I do agree with someone else that said that 99% of cops won't bother you carrying you have to think about two things.
1. What about that other 1%?
2. What if you end up having to actually use your gun? Then the fact that another officer won't arrest you doesn't matter. It now becomes a matter of whether the DA of that place will bother you. And depending on the circumstances of the shooting he might want to go after you big time.

So if you decide to carry in a place where you are not technically allowed you have to ask yourself one question... do I feel lucky? (OK, cheap Eastwood rip off but quite funny don't you think?)

Example:
99.9999% of NYC cops would not bother you for carrying even though it is 100% illegal for anyone to carry a gun in NY. I don't think they even like cops having guns ;) But if your gun goes off and some innocent politically hooked up person gets hits with a stray round, you are going to do hard time bud because technically you were carrying an illegal firearm.

Invisiblecop

02-14-2004, 03:51 PM

BODIE

The legislation you refer to started with the Law Enforcement Alliance Of America or LEAA. It's currently awaiting passage. Bill Nowicki a retired Police Officer and I believe Co-author of the Bill brought it to Washington several years ago. It missed ratification last time by 3 votes! This time it's very near passing. If it doesn't pass this time it dies.

You can view the Bill in it's entirety at the following site :

This is the OFFICIAL SITE for H.R.218!

http://www.leaa.org - The Bill is H.R.218

The LEAA is an organization that supports firearms and law enforcement personell nationwide. They were instrumental in assisting CCW for Ohio. Defending Cincinnati Officers in the media, Public Education, etc.

I've been a Lifetime Member for over 10 years and I'm extremely active in supporting H.R. 218.

Sentinel

I'd rethink you're statement concerning N.Y.P.D. not caring if you're armed. Moreover since 9-11 tings have tightened drastically. Politics is the issue when it comes to firearms.

I'm a recently retired officer, former N.Y.C. Firearms Instructor and N.R.A. Instructor. I've been extremely active in "familiarizing" officers here in the city with H.R.218 More than 95% are SUPPOTIVE! Many would welcome the "freedom" to carry interstate while on vacation. You never know what you'll encounter while just vacationing. I'm speaking in terms of personal safety only. I'm not referring to the "hot dogs."

The F.O.P. was introduced to H.R. 218 via the LEAA. Many L.E.O.'s believe the F.O.P. drafted the Bill which is not correct.

The issue of Guns has been a Political Hot Potato since JFK's assasination in November 1963. The Regan -Brady shooting fueled the fires even more. Politicians sing the songs their supporters want to hear. If they don't the campaign /war chests will dry up!

retired

02-14-2004, 05:33 PM

I'm opposed to the bill.

flatbadge

02-14-2004, 09:20 PM

That legislation has been pending on one form or another for years.

And

I am not opposed to the bill.

Garbage Man

02-14-2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by retired
I'm opposed to the bill.

Ok, why?

Texas 1911

02-16-2004, 02:54 PM

I second the question........WHY????

Invisiblecop

02-17-2004, 01:09 AM

Some feel that they don't wish to get involved in off duty incidents or anything post retirement. I can understand this to a degree. The degree is "anyone" can become a victim of violence and choosing not to "defend yourself" is foolish.

Others feel the Government or State need not "intervene" in this matter. As an Advocate and a Lifetime Member of LEAA I heard the "gamut" of reasons.

**Note** Bill H.R. 218 will "die" if not passed this year! Your support is urgently needed! Contact : http://www.leaa.org
for more information. This is the Original Site.

retired

02-17-2004, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Garbage Man
Ok, why?

Because I don't believe that the federal government should be intruding into a states right! Whenever the federal government gets involved with the states, there are always strings attached. Quite frankly there are some jurisdictions that have "cop" that shouldn't be carrying a gun, and many of them are strictly appointed. The standards in one state differ from another.

If the state of X doesn't wish to recognize state Y, that is their choice, not the choice of the federal Gestapo!

Perhaps if we had just one national federal police force it would solve the problem. You know, like the natonal police force in Nazi Germany.

retired

02-17-2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
Some feel that they don't wish to get involved in off duty incidents or anything post retirement. I can understand this to a degree. The degree is "anyone" can become a victim of violence and choosing not to "defend yourself" is foolish.

Others feel the Government or State need not "intervene" in this matter. As an Advocate and a Lifetime Member of LEAA I heard the "gamut" of reasons.

**Note** Bill H.R. 218 will "die" if not passed this year! Your support is urgently needed! Contact : http://www.leaa.org
for more information. This is the Original Site.

If it will make you feel better, I have written to all of my representaives asking them to vote no on the bill.:eek:

Deputy757

02-18-2004, 12:24 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by retired
Because I don't believe that the federal government should be intruding into a states right! Whenever the federal government gets involved with the states, there are always strings attached. Quite frankly there are some jurisdictions that have "cop" that shouldn't be carrying a gun, and many of them are strictly appointed. The standards in one state differ from another.
I know what you mean about wanting lesser federal gov't involvement, but this particular issue is already addressed in the Constitution in Article 4. States are to give "full faith and credit....to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Section 2 goes on to say that "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This is why we can drive in all 50 states without having to take their tests. I don't think it's unreasonable to extend this to accepting the LE certification of officers from other states. Yes, of course there are places where they employ poor examples of law enforcement. Among them are NYPD, LAPD, Detroit, Chicago...you name it. There are always going to be the bad apples but they are an extremely small percentage. If and when this bill passes, if one of these officers abuses the privilege it provides for, then deal with them then the way you deal with them now when they f*** up!
I personally will ask my congressmen to vote yes as I've been a supporter (and LEAA member) for many years.

Invisiblecop

02-18-2004, 01:21 AM

Deputy757

I'm lost re: NY, Chicago, LAPD, employ "poor examples of Law enforcement. Could you clarify.

retired
I know your position. I made no reference to your position. Whatever you choose to do is your own business.

j706

02-18-2004, 01:30 AM

Yes, of course there are places where they employ poor examples of law enforcement. Among them are NYPD, LAPD, Detroit, Chicago...you name it.

Oh boy, I knew that would be a opened can of worms !!

Sentinel

02-18-2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Deputy757
I know what you mean about wanting lesser federal gov't involvement, but this particular issue is already addressed in the Constitution in Article 4. States are to give "full faith and credit....to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Section 2 goes on to say that "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This is why we can drive in all 50 states without having to take their tests. I agree with the above completely. That is why I don't have to get married again every state I visit as they accept my marriage license, drivers license, etc... from NY. Why not my gun permit?
Originally posted by Deputy757
I don't think it's unreasonable to extend this to accepting the LE certification of officers from other states. This I disagree with. This legislation is not mandating that other states accept your LE certification. You will still have no LE powers in that other state. All it is saying is that you will be allowed to carry a firearm since you are qualified to carry a firearm. No LE powers will be extended or carried over from your home state.
Originally posted by Deputy757
Yes, of course there are places where they employ poor examples of law enforcement. Among them are NYPD, LAPD, Detroit, Chicago...you name it. There are always going to be the bad apples but they are an extremely small percentage. If and when this bill passes, if one of these officers abuses the privilege it provides for, then deal with them then the way you deal with them now when they f*** up!
I personally will ask my congressmen to vote yes as I've been a supporter (and LEAA member) for many years. Now this I totally disagree with. You must be joking right? The major metropolitan departments have much higher standards and are much more difficult to get into then smaller less equipped departments. Not that I don't think that this should not apply to them as well but if you are trying to say that large metro PDs have lower standards than a small 2 man part time PD you are dreaming. I know that some small departments in NY and here in FL have minimal qualifications at best and after very little training and background checking you can call yourself a police officer.

retdetsgt

02-18-2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Sentinel
Not that I don't think that this should not apply to them as well but if you are trying to say that large metro PDs have lower standards than a small 2 man part time PD you are dreaming. I know that some small departments in NY and here in FL have minimal qualifications at best and after very little training and background checking you can call yourself a police officer.

No kidding! Oregon requires all cops to attend a state academy and not be convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors. That's it.

We have a bunch of little depts with less than 5 or 6 officers that hire people no one else would touch. When I was working, every so often one of the denizens of these little towns would come in and do a crime or two. When I went out to contact them, I usually stopped by the local dept. as a courtesy to let them know I was there and tell them who I was contacting, where, etc. Boy, did I come across some doozies! I mean the cops, not the bad guys.

In one instance, they had a detective, (one) who went with me. The rape suspect wasn't at home so I asked him to call me if he sees the guy's car there. I didn't have a warrant, but I was going to bust him anyway. I told the cop that. The "detective" called me the next day and told he say the guy's car at home and stopped by told him I was looking for him. Not surprisingly, the suspect headed for the tall uncut. The next call I got was from his lawyer who told me not to talk to him.:mad:

I knew the "detective" personally. He used to be a security guard at a mall that was near my district when I was in uniform. This story isn't atypical of what we continually ran into in some of these places.

In another, a small town cop caught one of our murder suspects. That's good. He promised the guy he would let him call his girl friend IF he told him what happened in the murder. Gotta a worthless confession. That was bad. Even though our detective reinterviewed and tried to fix it, we damn near lost it in court. Some of these little town police need to stick to what they do best.

retired

02-18-2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Deputy757
[QUOTE]Originally posted by retired
Because I don't believe that the federal government should be intruding into a states right! Whenever the federal government gets involved with the states, there are always strings attached. Quite frankly there are some jurisdictions that have "cop" that shouldn't be carrying a gun, and many of them are strictly appointed. The standards in one state differ from another.
I know what you mean about wanting lesser federal gov't involvement, but this particular issue is already addressed in the Constitution in Article 4. States are to give "full faith and credit....to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Section 2 goes on to say that "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This is why we can drive in all 50 states without having to take their tests. I don't think it's unreasonable to extend this to accepting the LE certification of officers from other states. Yes, of course there are places where they employ poor examples of law enforcement. Among them are NYPD, LAPD, Detroit, Chicago...you name it. There are always going to be the bad apples but they are an extremely small percentage. If and when this bill passes, if one of these officers abuses the privilege it provides for, then deal with them then the way you deal with them now when they f*** up!
I personally will ask my congressmen to vote yes as I've been a supporter (and LEAA member) for many years.

If you do a little legal research you will find that section of the Constitution does not apply to CCW or other law enforcement matters.

retired

02-18-2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
Deputy757

I'm lost re: NY, Chicago, LAPD, employ "poor examples of Law enforcement. Could you clarify.

retired
I know your position. I made no reference to your position. Whatever you choose to do is your own business.

Of course it is, I am well aware of that!

Invisiblecop

02-18-2004, 04:28 PM

For Those Interested

The issue concerning "Active and Retired" is INDEMNIFICATION and Training. The LEEA is trying to "hash out" just who will be and is responsible for the officers training, especially those who've retired.

The overall concept behind the ability to carry interstate is not to ENFORCE LAWS but as a Self Defense Mechanism. Those of you who have read the proposal in its' entirety have come to understand this.
It has nothing to do with Enforcing Laws! This is a MISCONCEPTION!

The states who currently do not ascribe to the "Shall Issue Policy" are the ones who are dragging their feet concerning ratification. As it stands now there are 39 out of 50 states who have the "Shall Issue Policy" concerning the issuance of firearms licenses. Other states have a "Discretionary Ruling" which leaves MUCH to be desired. The Discretionary Ruling is as it sounds - Up to the Police Chief, Judge, etc. The basic problem with this is uniformity.

Classic examples New York and Massachusetss! In Massachusetts certain areas exercise "tighter" discretionary rulings and in other townships they may be extremely liberal. This causes much aggrevation to the law abiding citizen who should be granted a permit.

New York is another example. A New York City concealed carry permit is valid throughout New York State BUT the converse is not true! A New York State concealed carry permit is NOT valid in New York City!

Getting back to Bill H.R. 218, other issues concerning this Bill are the ability of Active Officers unable to "carry of duty." Case in point, Capital Police in Washington D.C. When an officer from this Department completes their tour they must carry their service weapon target style! In a locked box, unloaded, in the trunk of their vehicle! Ridiculous!

There are some states that do not condone off duty carry for their L.E.O.'s, this is another issue the LEAA is pursuing.

I'd rather spend my time encourages those interested in the issue than trying to "convert" those oppossed! The logic is simple : Those that are interested while follow the path necessary to effect change!

Those who remain uninterested which is their perogative will remain unswayed. In the long run my efforts will not be expended for naught when directed in a positive way

retired

02-18-2004, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
For Those Interested

The issue concerning "Active and Retired" is INDEMNIFICATION and Training. The LEEA is trying to "hash out" just who will be and is responsible for the officers training, especially those who've retired.

The overall concept behind the ability to carry interstate is not to ENFORCE LAWS but as a Self Defense Mechanism. Those of you who have read the proposal in its' entirety have come to understand this.
It has nothing to do with Enforcing Laws! This is a MISCONCEPTION!

The states who currently do not ascribe to the "Shall Issue Policy" are the ones who are dragging their feet concerning ratification. As it stands now there are 39 out of 50 states who have the "Shall Issue Policy" concerning the issuance of firearms licenses. Other states have a "Discretionary Ruling" which leaves MUCH to be desired. The Discretionary Ruling is as it sounds - Up to the Police Chief, Judge, etc. The basic problem with this is uniformity.

Classic examples New York and Massachusetss! In Massachusetts certain areas exercise "tighter" discretionary rulings and in other townships they may be extremely liberal. This causes much aggrevation to the law abiding citizen who should be granted a permit.

New York is another example. A New York City concealed carry permit is valid throughout New York State BUT the converse is not true! A New York State concealed carry permit is NOT valid in New York City!

Getting back to Bill H.R. 218, other issues concerning this Bill are the ability of Active Officers unable to "carry of duty." Case in point, Capital Police in Washington D.C. When an officer from this Department completes their tour they must carry their service weapon target style! In a locked box, unloaded, in the trunk of their vehicle! Ridiculous!

There are some states that do not condone off duty carry for their L.E.O.'s, this is another issue the LEAA is pursuing.

I'd rather spend my time encourages those interested in the issue than trying to "convert" those oppossed! The logic is simple : Those that are interested while follow the path necessary to effect change!

Those who remain uninterested which is their perogative will remain unswayed. In the long run my efforts will not be expended for naught when directed in a positive way

Why is our need for self-defense any greater than the general public?

Deputy757

02-19-2004, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Sentinel
This I disagree with. This legislation is not mandating that other states accept your LE certification. You will still have no LE powers in that other state. All it is saying is that you will be allowed to carry a firearm since you are qualified to carry a firearm. No LE powers will be extended or carried over from your home state.

I understand that there would be no extension of LE powers into the other states. What I was saying was that the other states would be recognizing your status as a LE officer (in your state) and therefore allowed to carry a concealed weapon in theirs.

Now this I totally disagree with. You must be joking right? The major metropolitan departments have much higher standards and are much more difficult to get into then smaller less equipped departments. Not that I don't think that this should not apply to them as well but if you are trying to say that large metro PDs have lower standards than a small 2 man part time PD you are dreaming. I know that some small departments in NY and here in FL have minimal qualifications at best and after very little training and background checking you can call yourself a police officer.

First, I did not mean that those departments I listed are worse than any other department. I simply meant that no agency is immune from occassionaly hiring someone who has no business being on the job.
However, as to what you said about major metropolitan dept's having much higher standards, I would say we should keep from making blanket statements about this issue or any of them. There are many major dept's that, for whatever reason, have a very severe shortage of personnel and have been forced to lower their standards. Or, having lost officers, have had to resort to lists containing applicants that were passed over the first time through because of significant shortcomings.
In Kentucky, there is (now) no difference in the application process and training received once hired between the largest and the smallest department in the state. Field training is still going to vary greatly from department to department.

Why is our need for self-defense any greater than the general public?
I totally agree that the public should have the same opportunity to defend themselves as we do, but they don't typically have to worry about people with vendetta's specifically targeting them for retribution. I know, you'll probably ask how many officers have been accosted by someone that they've arrested and I know that YOU have never had that problem (which I'm glad for). But there was an officer assassinated last year (I think) by friends of a man he had put away one year before. We had a sheriff killed by a political rival not too long ago. I'll check and see how many other LEO deaths have been similar.

retired

02-19-2004, 10:48 AM

[i][/b]
But there was an officer assassinated last year (I think) by friends of a man he had put away one year before. We had a sheriff killed by a political rival not too long ago. I'll check and see how many other LEO deaths have been similar. [/B]

Weren't these officers killed in or near their own jurisdiction where they carried a weapon? How many officers have been assaulted for revenge purposes while traveling around the country on vacation?:confused:

Sentinel

02-19-2004, 11:25 AM

retired,
I agree with you that while on vacation our need for self-defense is not any greater than that of the general public. I would agree to legislation that would include the general public under certain circumstances.

Deputy757 & retired,
The reason I back this legislation is not that I think we deserve it and they don't. I back it because I think we do; period. Civilian legislation would be a totally separate baby that, as I said, I may back as well depending on how it is written.

I think getting civilian version of this legislation would be much more difficult though. I think this legislation is different because the people we are talking about here are ...
1. Trained in the safe handling of firearms.
2. Trained in tactics of firearm use.
3. Have proven over "x" number of years of officially carrying a firearm that they are responsible with that firearm.

but most importantly ...
4. trained in legal ramifications of using and/or displaying a firearm.

No matter what the size of the department these minimal standards have been met to varying degrees. The same cannot be said for civilians.

I don't think that this legislation is about officers being attacked by people they have arrested while on vacation in another state. It is more about having a bunch of people that are trained in use, tactics and law of firearms walking around our country temporarily out of their jurisdictions that could be armed and ready to protect themselves and possibly you if they happen to be sitting next to you when something severe happens.

Deputy757,
Yes, some have higher standards than others but all major metro PDs have some standards. I cannot say with certain accuracy as I don't know the exact entrance qualifications for all major metro PDs but I would have to think that some academy is required and a background check/investigation. Proficiency with a firearm and a class in its legal use must also be required. My point is not the we as LEOs are the best or better than anyone else but more that we have documented what we have done and are therefore on paper as having proven minimal stands of competency with a firearm and its safe and lawful use. While the average civilian has not proven that. There are many civilians that are far more qualified than many LEOs but not on paper. If it is not on paper it hard to say who has done what. As LEOs we can prove on paper what we have done and are qualified to do.

retired

02-19-2004, 11:30 AM

Sentinel,

My primary opposition is the federal government mandating it!:( The federal government is already too powerful, and I just don't believe they should be telling the states what to do in this area. I believe it is a state's rights issue, and not a federal Gestapo issue!

Invisiblecop

02-19-2004, 12:39 PM

retired

If you read my post you will see that I've specified the point of "Shall Issue" by the states.

I've previouly "discussed" this issue with you and I'm well aware of your feelings regarding the Federal Government.

Concerning your response : "Why is our need for self defense than the general public?"

If you've read any of my posts concerning citizens and the ability to carry you would already know that I'm very much in favor of an "Armed Citizenry."

The idea od "armimg" officers to carry interstate my be the first step in breaking through the laws in general and opening the portals to more "Shall Issue States as well as "citizen interstate carry." Someone has to cross the threshold first.

Moreover, since my retirement I've been extremely "active" in encouraging people, women and seniors in particular, to get a firearms license. I've given numerous classes in Firearms Safety, Personal Defense and Use Of Force. I believe every law abiding citizen should have the option of choosing to arm themselves.

Bart

02-19-2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757
[BI totally agree that the public should have the same opportunity to defend themselves as we do, but they don't typically have to worry about people with vendetta's specifically targeting them for retribution. [/B]

the chances are slim that i will run into somebody ive arrested when im doing business in my own hometown. the chances are even slimmer that i'll run into somebody ive arrested while on vacation in california.

retdetsgt

02-19-2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by retired
Weren't these officers killed in or near their own jurisdiction where they carried a weapon? How many officers have been assaulted for revenge purposes while traveling around the country on vacation?:confused:

I assume you mean by someone other than your spouse because you passed a gift shop.......;)

Invisiblecop

02-19-2004, 04:47 PM

My "contention" is, if this Bill has a chance of passing I'll support it every way I can. I have posted my position regarding "civilian carry."

What makes "me" so special? I chose to take on a career frought with serious consequences. Not many "perks" nor acknowledgements are made. If this Bill affords me the "opportunity" for interstate carry --- so be it.

retired

02-19-2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
My "contention" is, if this Bill has a chance of passing I'll support it every way I can. I have posted my position regarding "civilian carry."

What makes "me" so special? I chose to take on a career frought with serious consequences. Not many "perks" nor acknowledgements are made. If this Bill affords me the "opportunity" for interstate carry --- so be it.

What serious consequences that many other occupations also have? Not many perks are acknowledgements?:confused:

Why the obsession to carry your weapon all over the country? I'm just curious.

retired

02-19-2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
I assume you mean by someone other than your spouse because you passed a gift shop.......;)

Uhhmmm, ahhhh, yea, yea!;)

Bart

02-19-2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by retired
Why the obsession to carry your weapon all over the country? I'm just curious.

some people feel less than adequete when unarmed. these are the same people whom usually become cops because they get to wear a gun on the hip. if we were unarmed like the cops in england, im sure we'd have alot less applicants trying to join.

Deputy757

02-19-2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Bart
the chances are slim that i will run into somebody ive arrested when im doing business in my own hometown. the chances are even slimmer that i'll run into somebody ive arrested while on vacation in california.
First, retired is right. Those cases did occur where the officer worked. I simply did not read his question right and answered it in the sense of why officers should be carrying off duty period. I'm fully aware of your attitude towards carrying off duty even though it flies in the face of every expert on police survival skills. The chances of me running into someone I've arrested in my town are excellent and happens all the time.
And I don't buy the argument that since nothing has happened to me up to this point, why should I bother carrying now? Going by that logic, why have health, disability, or life insurance? Or wear a bullet resistant vest for that matter.
You bring up England, which just about every anti-CCW or anti-gun advocate does. Have you spent any time there or know any constables that work in the major cities? Crime is rampant, they can't get people to work as officers due to the low pay and high risk, and guns are becoming ever more prevalant amongst criminals. The reason that many more (unarmed) constables don't get shot is because one, they don't respond to gun calls at all (armed units are sent), and two..if they happen to encounter someone with a gun, they are trained to run away. Literally...RUN AWAY!!!
Also, England and the US are two different creatures when it comes to guns. You could not police in the US with any kind of authority unless you were armed due to the fact that ours is a gun culture. It's something that's been a part of us since the country was conceived. England hasn't had gun control for all that long. But the big difference is that there are some pretty harsh consequences for unlawfully possessing a gun there, while in most places here...it's a mere misdemeanor.
Sentinel, I also support CCW for qualified citizens. So you're preaching to the choir on that point. I don't think we should have exclusive rights to that privilege.

Invisiblecop

02-20-2004, 12:45 AM

Deputy 757

Excellent Response!

retired

02-20-2004, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
Deputy 757

Excellent Response!

It's always an excellent response when someone else agrees with your opinion.;) ;)

Deputy757

02-20-2004, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by retired
It's always an excellent response when someone else agrees with your opinion.;) ;)

Hey...didn't I say you were right?? :D

Sentinel

02-20-2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Bart
some people feel less than adequete when unarmed. these are the same people whom usually become cops because they get to wear a gun on the hip. if we were unarmed like the cops in england, im sure we'd have alot less applicants trying to join. Wow. Just ... wow. I hear that kind of psychobabble crap from civilians all the time but I did n't think I would hear it from another cop. Do you really believe the crap you say or are you just trying to get a rise out of people?

I hated guns and was a staunch gun opponent before I joined the PD. I joined because I wanted a good job with decent pay and good benefits that I could also help people and maybe make a difference in a few peoples lives. It wasn't until after I became a cop that my stance on the gun issue changed 180 degrees and I became a gun buff. Now I like them on many levels, not just for self defense.

Please spare me your psychoanalysis about I am overcompensating for a small member or I love my mother and hate my father etc... It could simply be that I like my gun hobby and after having seen all I have seen I feel better with it than without it especially while on vacation in an unfamiliar place where any normal human being would feel less secure than in their own home surroundings.

ftlaudcop

02-20-2004, 10:49 AM

please give new york city, chicago, los angeles credit

if they are doing such a bad job, why are their jail's packed ?

someone is arresting people and locking them up..!!

Invisiblecop

02-20-2004, 12:56 PM

You more than 40,000 N.Y.P.D. Officers. If the "Policing" techniques were so very poor there'd undoubtedly be an "Investigatory Committee" formed to probe the issues at hand. The Knapp Commission in the 1970's was just such a commission. There had been only one after. Considering the amount of officers and "allegations/complaints" I don't see any MAJOR Policing issues!

It's amazing the very same alledged "officers" have firearms issues - YET - I don't see them requesting a "No Gun Post!" Officers who have issues with firearms and their ownership worry me more than the criminal element who are "illegally armed."

Trust me, this statement is a very poor attempt at "analyzing" anyones ideas or reasons.

retdetsgt

02-20-2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Sentinel
Wow. Just ... wow. I hear that kind of psychobabble crap from civilians all the time but I did n't think I would hear it from another cop. Do you really believe the crap you say or are you just trying to get a rise out of people?

Pyschobabble? It's pretty much the truth!

I've always been apathetic towards guns. I grew up owning rifles and shotguns, never owned a handgun until I became a cop. But I suspect that anyone who says they weren't just a little thrilled to be able to carry a concealed weapon for the first time is a liar. Most of us were quite thrilled about it. For me, it wore off fairly fast and I found packing whenever I left the house to be a hassle so I quit.

The "rise" comes out of people when you question the need for it. I've brought up several times here that the odds of you being in danger from someone you've arrested in the past are about the same as getting hit by a train. A number of times in my life I came across people that I had conflict with while working and they either got the hell away from me or were overly friendly. The only instance cited was some guy's sgt ran into someone in another town who he had arrested and he never left home w/o his gun again. I asked if the sgt had a problem with the guy in the encounter and never got a response. It sounded like the sgt just saw the guy and got scared.

That being said, again I don't care if anyone packs or not, be they cop or civilian with a legal CCW permit. But let's not get too silly about the need for it. The need is much more pyschological than practical. Maybe in NYC, it's all different, but I have never been on vacation anywhere that I had a moment that I wished I had a gun with me. Nor have I heard that from any of the several hundred cops I've known in my career. And if something had happened, you can bet the story would have gotten around the precincts!

Rjagger

02-20-2004, 01:18 PM

The whole idea of policing without weapons seems very foolish to me.

Your right America does have a gun culture, we also have a second amendment that I think is not being enforced properly. I think we should allow everyone that was trained and didn't have a criminal record to own and carry guns. Bad guys try not to attack armed citizens, because they have a habit of not being willing victims.

I also wish their was one national police standard, that way we could switch jobs back and forth in different states much easier.

One of the problems that I have had as a sheriff's deputy is that we travel all over the country going after and transporting prisoners. There is an endless amount of problems associated with this, most of them are taken care of with professional courtesy, but this law could help.

As far as meeting people you have arrested, I think most of us, in rural America at least, do that several times a day.

I think Bob Lee was one of those states rights guys, wish he would have taken Abe up on his offer to head the union forces. Could have saved a lot of lives.

retdetsgt

02-20-2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Rjagger

I also wish their was one national police standard, that way we could switch jobs back and forth in different states much easier.

Any standard would be way too low for some depts and too high for others.

And yes, it would be ridiculous to even consider policing w/o guns in this country.

And I agree that there should be no problem in carrying a gun while on duty. Technically, I broke the state of Washington's law many times when I crossed the river to interview a witness or victim of a crime in Oregon. I never worried about it, but it's a silly law that prevents out of state cops from carrying even while working.

Sentinel

02-20-2004, 02:40 PM

some people feel less than adequete when unarmed. these are the same people whom usually become cops because they get to wear a gun on the hip. if we were unarmed like the cops in england, im sure we'd have alot less applicants trying to join.

Said by retdetsgt...
Pyschobabble? It's pretty much the truth!

So you agree with this statement then retdetsgt? If so then once again things must be vastly different in Oregon then in NY AND FL because I know and have known a lot of cops and most of them carry off duty and I don't think that any of them became cops just to carry a gun. I think that is a blanket statement that is a poor attempt at a psychological profile that falls far short of the mark. To say that some cops like carrying a gun more than others might be more accurate but to say that some guys took this job for the purpose of carrying a gun is not at all realistic. It is far easier to get a CCW then to become a LEO.

I do agree that if we did not carry firearms the number of people willing to become LEOs would be lower but I don't think it is because we no longer have the coolness of carrying a gun. I think it would be because of the ridiculousness of being confronted by armed bad guys unarmed. I would not have become a cop if we were not allowed to carry guns on duty either and it is not because I love guns but because I would never want to being a stick to a gun fight.

Really retdetsgt. Sometimes I am surprised by your apparent opinion of LEOs today. Most of the guys I know don't think about their gun much. They do carry it however. For someone to insinuate that numbers of people took the job just to carry a gun and you agree with him? I'm glad I didn't work in Oregon because that must be some department to give you such a poor view of your fellow officers.

The reason I like to carry a gun has nothing at all to do with police work or running into people I have arrested. I have been the victim of crimes numerous times off duty and had I not been armed it would have been a very bad scene indeed. And I did indeed have an incident with 3 people that I arrested previously off duty. 2 resulted in them being arrested again. It does happen although I will admit probably not that often depending on where you police. But as I said I don't carry off duty for that reason. I carry because I am a person not because I am(was) a cop and there are bad people out there and I have had problems and seen even worse. If yo don't want to carry a gun that's fine. I respect your right to not carry. But if I choose to carry and i am qualified and it is legal then why am I all of a sudden a psycho that is filled with the might and power of owning a firearm? Sad that I do not make fun of you for not wanting to carry but you feel the need to mock me for carrying. It really comes down to us seeing the world differently. I happen to respect that you have your own view of the world and as such you see no need to carry a firearm. I happen to have my own view of the world based on what I have seen and dealt with and I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it. Yet you do not seem to think that I deserve the same respect from you. Again, I would expect this from a liberal ant-gun civilian that has never seen what we have seen but I would never expect this attitude about me by one of us that has seen what we have seen. How could you be a cop for a few years or more and not understand why someone (anyone not just a cop) might want to carry a gun?

retired

02-20-2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Rjagger

I also wish their was one national police standard, that way we could switch jobs back and forth in different states much easier.

Why not create a national police force? You know, like the SS and Gestapo in Nazi germany. They had one standard for the entire nation.:rolleyes:

Bart

02-20-2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757
You bring up England, which just about every anti-CCW or anti-gun advocate does. Have you spent any time there or know any constables that work in the major cities?

i wasnt comparing england to the US. i was just saying that if cops didnt carry guns, alot of people wouldnt want to be cops. in essence, i feel some people become cops because of the perceived power behind a badge and gun. further, alot of those same people are the most outspoken advocates of CCW. i wasnt fingering anybody in particular. i was just speaking in general terms based on my experience.

Bart

02-20-2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Sentinel
Wow. Just ... wow. I hear that kind of psychobabble crap from civilians all the time but I did n't think I would hear it from another cop. Do you really believe the crap you say or are you just trying to get a rise out of people?

I hated guns and was a staunch gun opponent before I joined the PD. I joined because I wanted a good job with decent pay and good benefits that I could also help people and maybe make a difference in a few peoples lives. It wasn't until after I became a cop that my stance on the gun issue changed 180 degrees and I became a gun buff. Now I like them on many levels, not just for self defense.

Please spare me your psychoanalysis about I am overcompensating for a small member or I love my mother and hate my father etc... It could simply be that I like my gun hobby and after having seen all I have seen I feel better with it than without it especially while on vacation in an unfamiliar place where any normal human being would feel less secure than in their own home surroundings.

first, im sure every cop has come across a co worker who only joined the job because if the badge and the gun. even though that person wont admit it, you see it in the way he carries himself on the street.

second, i wasnt fingering you (or anybody else for that matter) as somebody who is "overcompensating for a small member or I love my mother and hate my father etc..." i was speaking in general terms based on my experiences.

Bart

02-20-2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Sentinel
It could simply be that I like my gun hobby and after having seen all I have seen I feel better with it than without it especially while on vacation in an unfamiliar place where any normal human being would feel less secure than in their own home surroundings.

if you dont feel safe vacationing in a certain town, maybe you shouldnt visit that town.

retdetsgt

02-20-2004, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Sentinel
some people feel less than adequete when unarmed. these are the same people whom usually become cops because they get to wear a gun on the hip. if we were unarmed like the cops in england, im sure we'd have alot less applicants trying to join.

Said by retdetsgt...
Pyschobabble? It's pretty much the truth!

So you agree with this statement then retdetsgt? If so then once again things must be vastly different in Oregon then in NY AND FL because I know and have known a lot of cops and most of them carry off duty and I don't think that any of them became cops just to carry a gun. I think that is a blanket statement that is a poor attempt at a psychological profile that falls far short of the mark.

Why do you think people become reserves and not only work for nothing, but often go out and spend their own money for uniforms, etc? Civic duty? Getouttahere. If so many people were so civic minded, why aren't they volunteering to clear up parks, etc?

It's power. Pure and simple... Carrying a gun is power. People who become cops like power. That's not a low opinion of anybody, that's a fact. If the cops that you worked around didn't like having power, NYPD is different from any I ever heard of. And the guys that came from NYPD to work for my agency in 1975 must have been misfits back there! I don't have a low opinion of cops, but I'm a realist. I spent my life with these guys! I was one. I liked the power too. That's why we were cops and not social workers.

I don't understand why you chose to live somewhere that you are constantly a victim of crimes. I was burglarized once in 1977 when I was away and someone stole some Christmas decorations from my front yard two years ago. That's the entire total of times I've been a crime victim in my private life in nearly 59 years. I didn't live in NYC, but I lived in an city of over a million in the metro area. Carrying a gun wouldn't have prevented either one of those crimes.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I respect your right as a cop, retired cop or civilian with a legal CCW to carry a gun so I'll say it again. Knock yourself out. But that doesn't change the fact that the reasons for carrying it for the vast majority of people is pyschological and not practical. That's not saying you're a psycho and it's too bad that you read that in it.

But like it or not, only a very tiny minority of people in this country walk around packing a gun. And the ones that don't, for the most part live their lives just fine and aren't victims of crimes. In fact, I can't think of a single civilian that I know or have known in my life that ever got into a situation where they were a victim of a crime and a gun would have saved them. Of course, I'm not saying that it never happens, but life in this country isn't quite like it's portrayed in the American Rifleman.

And I can definitely tell you that I have never felt insecure and wishing I had a gun when I was on vacation. If you do, that's your thing, but I've been to a lot of places in my life, including Florida and was just fine being unarmed. If you see that as a personal attack on you, I'm sorry. I still don't give a rat if you carry a gun or not, but I still maintain that it's not nearly as necessary as some seem to believe it is.

Garbage Man

02-20-2004, 08:53 PM

Historically, I believe the need for Police Officers to carry guns is based on their increased likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime. Specifically, I am referring to the chance of coming across someone off duty that you arrested when you were on duty. When you travel to a different area it is much less likely that you will encounter this problem, so the need to carry is also less.

What has changed is terrorism. In other countries terrorists strike any time and anywhere there are large crowds. We have not seen this level of active terrorist activity and it

ftlaudcop

02-20-2004, 09:31 PM

I think those nypd cop's that were laid off in 75

were on a senority list, and a reduction in forces led them to

seek employment elsewhere.

the # 2 man on my dept is from that lay off, and we are one

of the most respected agencies in the usa, and after reading

the bio's of the top cmmand staff, we have quite a few from that era

in leadership roll's.

after living up north, in a city that has 13,000 cop's

and living in south fla, you better believe i carry off duty

no matter where i go, if violent crimes don't happen in

MAYBERRY R.F.D...thats a good thing, maybe in 2008 i;ll

move their and collect my bag of peanuts.

retdetsgt

02-20-2004, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Garbage Man
Historically, I believe the need for Police Officers to carry guns is based on their increased likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime. Specifically, I am referring to the chance of coming across someone off duty that you arrested when you were on duty.

Do you have anything to back up that statement? In 27 years, I don't recall any officer being the victim, off duty of someone they arrested previously. Nor has anyone on this board come up with 1st hand knowledge of that scenario.

I've come across, maybe a half a dozen people that I've arrested when off duty. No problem has ever presented itself. Another officer here said that his experience in a small town is that he comes across them daily. I have no experience nor have I ever read any study that gives any credence whatsoever to that hypothesis.

I would also suspect that if any terrorist strikes in your presence, your little handgun is going to be pretty worthless. These people aren't going to use weapons that you are going to be able to cope with, I'm fairly sure. You better be more concerned with getting you and your family to a safe place.

retdetsgt

02-20-2004, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by ftlaudcop
I think those nypd cop's that were laid off in 75

were on a senority list, and a reduction in forces led them to

seek employment elsewhere.

the # 2 man on my dept is from that lay off, and we are one

of the most respected agencies in the usa, and after reading

the bio's of the top cmmand staff, we have quite a few from that era

in leadership roll's.

after living up north, in a city that has 13,000 cop's

and living in south fla, you better believe i carry off duty

no matter where i go, if violent crimes don't happen in

MAYBERRY R.F.D...thats a good thing, maybe in 2008 i;ll

move their and collect my bag of peanuts.

Well yeah, they were laid off in 1975. I thought that was fairly common knowledge. Did you read in my post that I said anything that was derogatory about them? What I did was make a point to Sentinel about what kind of people become cops.... We have about a half a dozen of them. Most are retiring now. Good guys and good cops. We were lucky to get them. Interesting what people read between the lines on this forum.

And I didn't work in Mayberry RFD. There's about a million people here in the metro area. Not the biggest by far, but hardly Mayberry. We have L.A. style gangs and driveby shootings about everyday or so. But I never felt paranoid enough to carry a gun when I wasn't working and never had a situation that made me think I should. But I didn't hang out in the parts of town that had the drivebys either when I was off work.

As I said, I was a victim 2X in my private life and neither were violent crimes nor would a gun have helped me in the slightest. Nor do I feel paranoid when I go on vacation to even to South Florida. But then again, I don't view myself as a 24 hour a day crime fighter either. It was a job, just like any other. You can chose to make it a lifestyle, I didn't.

Rjagger

02-21-2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
I would also suspect that if any terrorist strikes in your presence, your little handgun is going to be pretty worthless. These people aren't going to use weapons that you are going to be able to cope with, I'm fairly sure. You better be more concerned with getting you and your family to a safe place.

Last time they used box cutters....give me a little room and I think my glock can handle a bunch of folks with box cutters. I train pretty regular with that scenerio.

Next time they will probably use germs or haz-mat....but we do not know that, my guess is the gun will still be a handy thing to have when the chaos starts.

I don't know how it is in your world but the sad truth is in my world the wife has to be the one worring about the family. When the crap is in the fan.... I am going to be busy

retired

02-21-2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Rjagger
Last time they used box cutters....give me a little room and I think my glock can handle a bunch of folks with box cutters. I train pretty regular with that scenerio.

Next time they will probably use germs or haz-mat....but we do not know that, my guess is the gun will still be a handy thing to have when the chaos starts.

I don't know how it is in your world but the sad truth is in my world the wife has to be the one worring about the family. When the crap is in the fan.... I am going to be busy

How do you know they used boxcutters? I don't know of a cellphone today that will operate over 8,000 feet of altitude, do you?

And what chaos would that be? And what crap do you expect to hit the fan, particularly in North Missouri?;)

Invisiblecop

02-21-2004, 07:51 PM

Most officers whom I asked "why" they became an officer gave straight up answers! Those that were drawn to the position by the shield and gun stated without compunction!

A CCW is not a piece of cake in New Yorkl City "proper." New York City is one of the most difficult cities to obtain a concealed carry permit. Obtaining a New York State Concealed Carry Permit is relatively easy BUT it is not valid in New York City.

I've been the victim of of duties crimes more than I care to remember. Had I not been "armed" I would not be here in all probability!

**I too got caught up in the 1975 lay-offs. Only we were the very last officers to be laid off as we were the "last group" hired.

Garbage Man

02-21-2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
Do you have anything to back up that statement? In 27 years, I don't recall any officer being the victim, off duty of someone they arrested previously. Nor has anyone on this board come up with 1st hand knowledge of that scenario.

I have no experience nor have I ever read any study that gives any credence whatsoever to that hypothesis.

I would also suspect that if any terrorist strikes in your presence, your little handgun is going to be pretty worthless. These people aren't going to use weapons that you are going to be able to cope with, I'm fairly sure. You better be more concerned with getting you and your family to a safe place.

So I need to provide a study or relate some personal experiences to convince you that some people we arrest don't like us and would love to get revenge?

After 9-11 my agency issued a memorandum that stopped just short of requiring us to carry at all times in public places. My friends who work the counter terrorism task force tell me that the threat is very real and can come in a variety of ways. It makes no sense at all to assume you know what the terrorists will do next and eliminate your response options based on your assumptions. It is better to have and not want then to want and not have.

virgilthetiger

02-21-2004, 09:29 PM

my question is will your dept cover the liability out side your juristiction.

Virgil

Nobody

02-21-2004, 09:52 PM

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

retired

02-21-2004, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Nobody
you'll have to forgive me - I wrote most of this thread off to the rule of "opinions are like the tail end of your digestive system.."

but what are you implying w/ the comment about the cellphones? Another gubment conspiracy?

I don't really believe in conspiracy theories, I think they are a result of a very creative mind, and are rarely authentic. Most if not all are what a person wants them to be.

But the cellphone calls were a crucial element of the official version of the events of 911. The cellphones were the method that identifed Arabs as hijackers, and boxcutter as weapons. If the cell phones on those hijacked planes worked, I don't believe they would work at an altitude over 8,000 ft. The official version says that the calls from the hijacked airliners were made when the fights were at a much higher altitude. The aluminum surfaces of a 757 and 767 are not transparent, and they offer a high attenuation of radio transmitions.

My point is that even the FBI has said they really don't know who the hijackers were,and its even more unlikely that they know for certainty that boxcutters were the weapons on the aircrafts.

Again, no, I don't think there is any conspiracy involved, just information that isn't really accurate. Unless you know that a cellphone will operate efficiently at an altitude of over 8,000 feet.

Unfortunately I'm leaving tommorow and will be out of town for two weeks. I'll be glad to discuss this with you when I return.

Garbage Man

02-21-2004, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by virgilthetiger
my question is will your dept cover the liability out side your juristiction.

Virgil
Its not the departments descision whether they will cover the liability its the civil courts decision based on what established policies the department has and whether I followed those policies.

As I said the department stopped short of ordering us to carry off duty. Thanks to our litigious society our administators have become masters of writing policies that don't actually say anything. If the department had ordered us to carry off duty then we could be sued for not acting in a situation and not having our firearm.

JB2245

02-21-2004, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by retired
Again, no, I don't think there is any conspiracy involved, just information that isn't really accurate. Unless you know that a cellphone will operate efficiently at an altitude of over 8,000 feet.

I may be wrong, but I believe the calls were placed via "air phone". These phones are on the back of each seat in larger comercial jets. You can use them by entering your credit card number.

Garbage Man

02-21-2004, 10:55 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by retired
[
My point is that even the FBI has said they really don't know who the hijackers were,and its even more unlikely that they know for certainty that boxcutters were the weapons on the aircrafts.

HUH? They know exactly who they were and have never made any such claims. They even put their pictures in the paper. Wasn't too hard based on the passenger list. God man, do we need to do a research paper on everything? The box cutters came from some source, I don't remember now but I am certain that would not have been made up from thin air. It could have come from either the pilots radio transmissions or the inflight phone conversations from the one plane that went into the field. Those passengers talked for awhile with their families.

Invisiblecop

02-21-2004, 11:57 PM

virgilthetiger

Go to the leaa homepage at : http://www.leaa.org read through Bill H.R. 218. You'll see this is an important issue that they are trying to "hammer out" at this point. Alledgedly the Officers home state will be responsible for "deeming" eligibility and continium training.

Nobody

02-22-2004, 01:16 AM

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Invisiblecop

02-22-2004, 03:02 AM

Nobody

You're absolutely correct regarding the ability of personal cell phones working while the plane is in "flight!"

United Flight 93, the plane the "earth swallowed" up in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, several calls were made from "personal cell phones." One passenger, Thomas Burnett, phoned his wife Deena four times learning of the Twin Towers crashes via a cell phone conversation. Todd Beamer who together with other passengers on the flight called his wife one last time and told her he was "Getting Ready To Roll" on the hi-jackers. The individuals who recieved these calls had the numbers appear on caller I.D., this proves that cell phones are operable while the plane is airborne!

retdetsgt

02-22-2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Garbage Man
So I need to provide a study or relate some personal experiences to convince you that some people we arrest don't like us and would love to get revenge?

You don't have to provide anything, but it sounds more like the fantasy that a lot of young cops have than reality. If you don't have personal experience or read a study, what else can you base it on other than something you just made up? Just because you "think it" or it "makes sense to you" doesn't make it true.

My experience, which is a number of years, is that bad guys want nothing to do with us, on duty or not. Maybe that's not the common belief, but my co workers and I have found that to be true. You made this statement so matter-a-factly, I wondered if you knew something I didn't. Apparently not.

Besides, you run into B. Guy in the parking lot of Wal-Mart after you arrested him for beating up his wife. He says he's gonna kick your butt, but doesn't display nor says anything about a weapon. Does your state give you more latitude in the use of deadly force off duty than on? What good does your gun do you? Btw, in 27 years of LE, I never heard of that happening to anyone. Every encounter I've had or any of my peers have had, the BG leaves ASAP or is overly friendly.

And yeah, you running around in NYC on 9-11 with your off duty gun would have done wonders......

Rjagger

02-22-2004, 12:02 PM

A gun on the ground wouldn't have helped much on 9-11. One on any of those planes, in the hands of a trained operator, could have done a lot of good.

Putting more guns in the places where they can do some good, in the hands of trained operators is what this bill is about.

PS. I hope your right about North Missouri, that is the main reason that I live here. The trouble is all those trains, planes, automobles, and pipelines, that tie together the country go right through here. Then theres B1 bombers, nuculear power plants, missle silos and only the government knows what else stashed all around us.

All we can do is hope for the best, and then train and try to be ready for the worst.

retdetsgt

02-22-2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Rjagger
A gun on the ground wouldn't have helped much on 9-11. One on any of those planes, in the hands of a trained operator, could have done a lot of good.

Putting more guns in the places where they can do some good, in the hands of trained operators that have proved they know how to use them is what this bill is about.

Does this bill allow regular LE to carry guns on planes? They need to be crack shots and most LE are a little better than adequate. I thought it was just to allow LE to carry interstate. The last time I carried a gun on a plane was a long time ago and I was on duty. It was a hassle to get clearance even then. I seriously doubt they're going to let Dep. or Off. Joe Schmoo from Paducah, Texas to carry a firearm on an airline flight. (No offense to Paducah, Texas btw)

You wouldn't have needed a gun on any of the hijacked planes if people didn't have the sheep mentality that the airlines had encouraged. Any group of 50+ people can overpower 5 or 6 if they only have box cutters. And apparently that's what they were armed with. Using pilows and blankets, it's doubtful anyone would have been seriously injured. I never understood how a few people could make 100 go where they didn't want to, expecially when the bad guys don't have guns.

Rjagger

02-22-2004, 12:25 PM

Dt Srgt

I have enjoyed your insight. I can't say I ever felt very impowered by a blanket or pillow.

Nobody

02-22-2004, 12:28 PM

retdetsgt

02-22-2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Rjagger
Dt Srgt

I have enjoyed your insight. I can't say I ever felt very impowered by a blanket or pillow.

I agree, a gun would be better, but the people on these planes didn't have one. I was just making the point that they could have been overpowered w/o a firearm and probably safely. None of that would have happened if the people on the planes had taken out the hijackers in the beginning. I doubt another plane will ever be hijacked like that again. But I seriously doubt they will ever allow local LE on planes with guns..... Too many variances in training, hiring, etc.

I'm for making the cockpit a fortress that can only be opened from the inside. If the hijacker has no access to the pilot, he can't make it go anywhere. I don't know if arming the pilot is a wonderful idea or not either. I'd rather him or her be more focused on flying the plane. Studies have shown that a lot of people aren't psychologically capable of killing someone. A pilot with a gun that has been told to use it and can't is worse than nothing at all.

retdetsgt

02-22-2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Invisiblecop

I've been the victim of of duties crimes more than I care to remember. Had I not been "armed" I would not be here in all probability!

Really! You and Sentinel are the only two to say that so far. NYC must be a worse place to live than advertised.:eek:

That being said, sure there are places here I would feel very uncomfortable walking down the street unarmed. The solution is fairly easy. I don't go there. There is nothing in that part of town that I can't get in a safer one. When I was on duty, it was my job to go down there. Off duty, I was free to chose not to.

x5150x

02-22-2004, 04:19 PM

The main reason you will see civilians against this bill is because they believe that once the cops get nationwide CCW rights the cops will lose interest in the fight for civilian CCW...and, I have to agree. LEO's in favor of CCW are a STRONG voice and are VERY beneficial to the cause of civilian CCW.

I say it should be CCW for every qualified civilian and LEO.

Nobody

02-22-2004, 06:08 PM

retdetsgt

02-22-2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Nobody
local/state LEO's can fly armed, just have to provide an "official letter on letterhead" from their agency explaining why they need to be armed.

But that's not a guarantee that you'll have your gun on you during the flight. My ex-partner did that, had all the letterhead, etc and the pilot required him and his new partner to put their guns in a safe in the cockpit. They have a right to do that, it's their plane. No like, no fly.

Deputy757

02-22-2004, 10:54 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by retdetsgt
Besides, you run into B. Guy in the parking lot of Wal-Mart after you arrested him for beating up his wife. He says he's gonna kick your butt, but doesn't display nor says anything about a weapon. Does your state give you more latitude in the use of deadly force off duty than on? What good does your gun do you? Btw, in 27 years of LE, I never heard of that happening to anyone. Every encounter I've had or any of my peers have had, the BG leaves ASAP or is overly friendly.

Yes, there is more latitude (generally) in the use of deadly force off duty than on. Off duty, you most likely are not going to have access to intermediate weapons like a baton or OC spray, or the ability to readily summon assistance. Jumping levels in the force continuum is not unheard of and necessary in situations like this. But you make a good point and that's why I carry a lightweight asp in addition to a off duty firearm. There are situations where deadly force is not called for but you may be forced to take some sort of enforcement action. And before you call me paranoid, this is something that is taught and encouraged by many defensive tactics instructors and law enforcement use of force experts.

As for a study of how often officers have been involved in situations, off duty, where they were accosted (and killed) by someone they had previously dealt with in their capacity as a LEO, I did a quick search and found two. One was Investigator Antonio Sapinoso of the Greeneville, SC sheriff's department and the other was Det. Thomas G. Newman of the Baltimore City PD. There were many more off duty deadly force encouters where the officer didn't know his/her assailant. Also, these incidents did not include any where the officer survived and the bad guy died.

Really! You and Sentinel are the only two to say that so far. NYC must be a worse place to live than advertised.
It is! In the book, "Total Survival" by Ed Nowicki, Masaad Ayoob states that a large percentage of NYC's officer involved shootings are from off-duty incidents. I want to say that the number was 40% but I'll have to check to be sure.

I really can't believe that you blanketly assume everyone that gets into this job does it for the power. You ask why reserve officers would do it for free if not for the power that they get from donning a uniform, badge, and gun and discount any notion of civic duty because they aren't out picking up garbage. This is cynicism, pure and simple. Just because you've lost all notion of doing something that benefits others because it's a good thing to do, don't assume the rest of us have. Sure, there are some heavy handed a**holes out there, but they are most certainly the minority. In this day and age of law enforcement, they don't last very long in the job anyway.
I'm glad you never had to defend yourself off duty. I'm glad you never had a need to carry your firearm off duty. I'm sure this is the case for a large percentage of American LEO just as most of them will never fire their gun on duty at a suspect. However, these situations do present themselves from time to time as some fortunate and unfortunate officers have found out. And just like wearing your vest is a pain in the a** until you get shot and are glad it was there, so is carrying a gun everywhere you go. I wonder if it ever occurred to you that the reason none of the punks you dealt with never messed with you is maybe they thought you were armed and didn't want to take the chance on dying.

Bart

02-22-2004, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757
In the book, "Total Survival" by Ed Nowicki, Masaad Ayoob states that a large percentage of NYC's officer involved shootings are from off-duty incidents. I want to say that the number was 40% but I'll have to check to be sure.

i have a couple of questions regarding this....

1. what percentage of that 40% were deemed justified by the deapartment?

2. does the NYPD confirm the assertion that 40% of NYPD officer involved shooting occur while the officer is off duty?

3. what was the total number of officer involved shootings that occured in the sample time period and what was the total number of shooting that occured while the officer was off duty. the reason i ask is that the NYPD has 35 to 40 thousand officers. if there were only 100 officer involved shootings in a year, that doesnt seem like a whole lot for a dept that size.

Rjagger

02-23-2004, 09:18 AM

In god we trust...everybody else ...stay over there so I can see your hands.

I am all for guns in the cockpit. However if I was a terrorist, and wanted to use a plane to kill a bunch of people. I would get a certified and get a job as pilot.

The vast majority of people are good. We just have to be sure that they are able to defend themselves and they will take care of the rest. That is what the second amendment is all about.

Wonder why all those guys were on the plan when we got on?

JRT6

02-23-2004, 09:21 AM

last year an off duty Cleveland cop woke to a guy burglarizing his home. As the bad guy was literally beating the cop in the head with a pipe the cop shot the burglar twelve times and undoubtedly saved his life and that of his family. So I told the cop about all the stuff Bart and Retired think about cops who carry are over compensating, there isn't any danger because nothing has ever happened to them, and all the other generalizations and cheap chliches and all that. His response: "Why do you waste your time arguing with...":eek:

Don't like guns and don't think you need them? Fine, don't carry or own one and leave the rest of us alone. Why is it such a big deal to you anyway? Instead of making those sweaping generalinzations and psychobables like the ones Bart has to keep defending himself on; look at you own motivations for why your making them in the first place. Start out with "projecting".

retdetsgt

02-23-2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757
[QUOTE]Originally posted by retdetsgt
Besides, you run into B. Guy in the parking lot of Wal-Mart after you arrested him for beating up his wife. He says he's gonna kick your butt, but doesn't display nor says anything about a weapon. Does your state give you more latitude in the use of deadly force off duty than on? What good does your gun do you? Btw, in 27 years of LE, I never heard of that happening to anyone. Every encounter I've had or any of my peers have had, the BG leaves ASAP or is overly friendly.

Yes, there is more latitude (generally) in the use of deadly force off duty than on. Off duty, you most likely are not going to have access to intermediate weapons like a baton or OC spray, or the ability to readily summon assistance.

Murder is murder. If the guy is not threatening you with deadly force, how can you justify killing him? The joint's full of people who had that excuse. And we're not talking about other enforcement actions, we're talking about guns.

And in all the police assaults in the U.S., you found two. Impressive.

As far as reserves, give me a break! Civic duty, my butt. Sure, it includes that to an extent, but it's the idea of playing cop, carrying a gun and having power over people. There are lots of ways people can perform civic duty w/o going out and spending bunch of money to do it. And I'm not saying that all cops are heavy handed, that's not true at all. The vast majority use the power they're given wisely. But to discount the power ingredient is whistling in the dark. And all the flag waving isn't going to change it.

As far as the vest goes, sure I wore it. Because I was on duty. At least I know the difference of being at work and not. I don't have to play the fantasy that I'm going to singlehandedly stop an armed robbery somewhere if I carry my gun often enough. Listening to some of you, it makes me think you just dream of the opportunity to whip out your gun and save the day....

I've said many times, I don't care if you carry a gun or not. It doesn't matter to me. I just think that there needs to be a little reality put in as to why.

retdetsgt

02-23-2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by JRT6
last year an off duty Cleveland cop woke to a guy burglarizing his home. As the bad guy was literally beating the cop in the head with a pipe the cop shot the burglar twelve times and undoubtedly saved his life and that of his family. So I told the cop about all the stuff Bart and Retired think about cops who carry are over compensating, there isn't any danger because nothing has ever happened to them, and all the other generalizations and cheap chliches and all that. His response: "Why do you waste your time arguing with...":eek:

Don't like guns and don't think you need them? Fine, don't carry or own one and leave the rest of us alone. Why is it such a big deal to you anyway? Instead of making those sweaping generalinzations and psychobables like the ones Bart has to keep defending himself on; look at you own motivations for why your making them in the first place. Start out with "projecting".

Tell me, what does the example of the Cleveland cop have to do with carrying off duty? Reading comprehension problem? The guy was in his home. That has nothing to do with the topic. I don't know any cops who don't have guns in their home.

And leave the rest of you alone? Am I hassling you? Try reading the posts a little better. I never said you shouldn't carry off duty. I'm just saying that it's not nearly as important as apparently you and a lot of people say it is. The odds of you having to use an off duty weapon is miniscule. When you have to search all over the country to find a few instances where it happened, considering the number of off duty cops that are out there, yeah, it doesn't happen much.

Bart

02-23-2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by JRT6
Instead of making those sweaping generalinzations and psychobables like the ones Bart has to keep defending himself on; look at you own motivations for why your making them in the first place.

me defend myself? why would i have to do that. ive stated before that i dont give a rats ***** what anybody thinks. somebody ask for an opinion and i give it. if people dont like certain answers to certain questions, maybe they shouldnt ask.

Deputy757

02-23-2004, 11:12 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by retdetsgt
Murder is murder. If the guy is not threatening you with deadly force, how can you justify killing him? The joint's full of people who had that excuse. And we're not talking about other enforcement actions, we're talking about guns.
As soon as he begins assaulting me while I'm in possession of a firearm (and nothing else), it becomes a deadly force situation. We were taught one scenario in the academy in which an otherwise unarmed subject attempts to pull your firearm from it's holster. The end result is the officer drawing and shooting the suspect.

And in all the police assaults in the U.S., you found two. Impressive.
Like I said, it was a quick search and it was only of situations in which the officer died. There are surely many more instances in which the officer lived.

...but it's the idea of playing cop, carrying a gun and having power over people. There are lots of ways people can perform civic duty w/o going out and spending bunch of money to do it.
Who says they have to spend a bunch of money? Our reserve deputy was issued a uniform and firearm just like the rest of us. He attends annual in-service which the department pays for. I know that his reason for being a reserve has nothing to do with power. He never rides on his own and rarely arrests anyone. He simply finds the work interesting and had he not have become an engineer, would have probably embarked on a career in LE.
Do you think that people who take on civic duties, such as mayor or councilman or magistrate, without pay, do so because they are on a power trip and like to be able to make laws that other's have to follow? Maybe some do, but I personally feel like most do it because they want to have some part in improving the community that they are living and/or raising a family in.

I don't have to play the fantasy that I'm going to singlehandedly stop an armed robbery somewhere if I carry my gun often enough. Listening to some of you, it makes me think you just dream of the opportunity to whip out your gun and save the day....
Who has posted anything that remotely suggests that they are looking for an opportunity to interrupt a major felony while off duty? But at the same time, if it happens and you find it necessary to do more than make a great witness (such as they begin executing people), it'd be nice to have more than good intentions to draw upon! I know, it's probably never going to happen to the average officer. But the average officer is more than likely never going to get shot at, on or off duty. Does that mean it's not worthwhile to wear a vest?

I'm just saying that it's not nearly as important as apparently you and a lot of people say it is.
Fine! You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But in matters of officer survival (both on and off duty), I think I'll take my advice from people who make their living from researching what works and what doesn't when it comes to being tactically sound.

JB2245

02-23-2004, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
The odds of you having to use an off duty weapon is miniscule. When you have to search all over the country to find a few instances where it happened, considering the number of off duty cops that are out there, yeah, it doesn't happen much.

I don't have to search all over the country, I personally know four cops that were robbed while off duty in the last five years. Three of them killed their target, and one was shot in a gunfight with the robber.

JRT6

02-24-2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
Tell me, what does the example of the Cleveland cop have to do with carrying off duty? Reading comprehension problem? The guy was in his home. That has nothing to do with the topic. I don't know any cops who don't have guns in their home.

How do you think his duty gun got home? He beamed it there from work?

Five forum pages of you, Bart, and Retired bickering about a subject(thread) that wasn't even about whether cops should off duty in the first place and you think you guys ain't got some issues? Projection maybe? A little obsessive compulsive?

Bart, Arguing about how you were only making "generalizations"(your quote not mine) after people didn't care for your maligning and ridiculing of your fellow police officers is redundant.

I personally know of and know several cops who have had to use their guns to defend their lives or those of others off duty(including me).

There are cops who feel their lives and that of their families are worth taking five seconds of their time to put a gun on. For those of you who hate that concept: it's ok, it has no bearing on your life or whatever self threat you preceive it to be. Get over it already.

Garbage Man

02-25-2004, 02:17 AM

*******You don't have to provide anything, but it sounds more like the fantasy that a lot of young cops have than reality. If you don't have
RETDETSGT
personal experience or read a study, what else can you base it on other than something you just made up? Just because you "think it" or it "makes sense to you" doesn't make it true.

My experience, which is a number of years, is that bad guys want nothing to do with us, on duty or not. Maybe that's not the common belief, but my co workers and I have found that to be true. You made this statement so matter-a-factly, I wondered if you knew something I didn't. Apparently not.

Besides, you run into B. Guy in the parking lot of Wal-Mart after you arrested him for beating up his wife. He says he's gonna kick your butt, but doesn't display nor says anything about a weapon. Does your state give you more latitude in the use of deadly force off duty than on? What good does your gun do you? Btw, in 27 years of LE, I never heard of that happening to anyone. Every encounter I've had or any of my peers have had, the BG leaves ASAP or is overly friendly.

And yeah, you running around in NYC on 9-11 with your off duty gun would have done wonders......*******

SGT its a good thing you're retired. We are facing a whole new breed of criminal out here. A type I don't think you can even comprehend. A recent example is the Mexican Mafias recent order to all its affiliated gang members to engage cops in gun battles when confronted or face consequences. In California we have (as do many other states) a three strikes law which states that the person is going to prison for the rest of his life for any third felony. When they see a cop off duty, if they are already wanted, why not kill him? Your going back anyway might as well earn some bragging rights.

If there has never been a study on this it is only because it is such common sense no one has felt it needed studying. Off the top of my head I remember an example of a survival video of an officer who was hunted by a man he had written a ticket too. When the man found the Officer he shot him in the face with a shotgun. Now the Officer was on duty at the time, but that only made it easier to find him. If the suspect had found him off duty, say at the store, I doubt he would have just walked away.

I have not provided specifics because I should not need to. The point I am making is not that advanced. Many criminals are violent sociopaths who can not except the responsibility for their own messed up lives and see the police as their persecutors. They literally hate us and cheer whenever they hear about one of us getting killed. This is no fantasy. The idea that someone whose life you helped ruin is going to just walk away whenever he sees you strikes me as more fantastic than anything I am trying to say. But tell me is he less likely to walk away when you have a gun?

As for terrorism, pointing out an example where having a gun in the past would not have helped does not in any way offer a constructive response. A gun would not help in many scenarios but it would certainly help in others. You talk about having new information. Do you have some crystal ball that knows exactly what the terrorists are going to do next? I

Garbage Man

02-25-2004, 02:24 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Deputy757

But you make a good point and that's why I carry a lightweight asp in addition to a off duty firearm.

Uhhh, look I know we are on the same side in this debate, but dude, you're scaring me. :)

JRT6

02-25-2004, 07:34 AM

Garbage man,

The breed of criminal hasn't changed and neither has certain cops' perception of them:(

They don't call those cops "R.O.D.s" for nothing.

retdetsgt

02-25-2004, 12:26 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Garbage Man
[B]

retdetsgt

02-25-2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by JRT6
How do you think his duty gun got home? He beamed it there from work?

Sure I carried my gun to and from work. I didn't take it to the grocery store though every time I went. And I didn't pack it when I took my kids to a movie.

retdetsgt

02-25-2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757
[QUOTE]
As soon as he begins assaulting me while I'm in possession of a firearm (and nothing else), it becomes a deadly force situation. We were taught one scenario in the academy in which an otherwise unarmed subject attempts to pull your firearm from it's holster. The end result is the officer drawing and shooting the suspect.

Heh, I wouldn't bet my lunch money on that scenario.... And you're betting the rest of your life.... You might pull it off, but it's not the slam dunk they told you. If there are witnesses there who testify that they never saw the guy going for your gun, he was just pounding you with his fists, it's bye bye if you pull it out and shoot him.... And if you pull the gun to bluff him and no one says that the bad guy had any weapon, it won't fly either. The bad guy's motive then is he's afraid for his life because he never intended to introduce deadly force, but you did. And he's got a good case when it goes to court. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have just a fist fight in a parking lot one day than have one everyday in the joint. Being a cop in prison isn't something I relish. You MIGHT pull it off if you have the right jury, but it would be a hell of a risk. And in civil court, you're in a real mess.

O.C. is justifiable in the face of threats of being assaulted, guns aren't.

Once something like that starts, police have no special rights other than being able to possess the gun. You can't shoot anyone an armed civilian can't shoot.

And of course you need to wear a vest on duty because everyone know you're a police officer.

Yeah, I know some cops that got robbed off duty. Four were in a bar after work and two guys came in with shotguns and proned everyone. Now, one of them could have played hero and got himself and a lot of other innocent people killed by pulling out his pistol. Instead, they were smart and did what they were told. They lost their guns and badges. Now, could have they been killed when the robbers saw there were cops, yeah. But they weren't and it would have been a slam dunk a lot of people would have been killed if they had.

Fine! You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But in matters of officer survival (both on and off duty), I think I'll take my advice from people who make their living from researching what works and what doesn't when it comes to being tactically sound.

What can you offer about off duty then from their research? that was my original question. I was an avid student of on duty officer survival. But off duty was never a problem to me or anyone I knew.

retdetsgt

02-25-2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Garbage Man
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Deputy757

But you make a good point and that's why I carry a lightweight asp in addition to a off duty firearm.

Uhhh, look I know we are on the same side in this debate, but dude, you're scaring me. :)

A lot of things seem to scare you.....;)

Bart

02-25-2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by JRT6
Five forum pages of you, Bart, and Retired bickering about a subject(thread) that wasn't even about whether cops should off duty in the first place and you think you guys ain't got some issues? Projection maybe? A little obsessive compulsive?

Bart, Arguing about how you were only making "generalizations"(your quote not mine) after people didn't care for your maligning and ridiculing of your fellow police officers is redundant.

if cops want to carry off duty, thats fine with me. i dont care either way. but dont come on here and tell me that cops are more prone to violence while off duty as opposed to a sanitation worker. ive never been assaulted while off duty in the nine years that ive been a cop. i highly doubt im an exception to the norm.

retdetsgt

02-25-2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Bart
if cops want to carry off duty, thats fine with me. i dont care either way. but dont come on here and tell me that cops are more prone to violence while off duty as opposed to a sanitation worker. ive never been assaulted while off duty in the nine years that ive been a cop. i highly doubt im an exception to the norm.

Exactly! But it wouldn't be as cool:cool:

Bart

02-25-2004, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Garbage Man
[BWe are facing a whole new breed of criminal out here. A type I don't think you can even comprehend. A recent example is the Mexican Mafias recent order to all its affiliated gang members to engage cops in gun battles when confronted or face consequences. [/B]

criminals are criminals no matter which way you cut it. they havent gotten any better or worse in the last decade. i highly doubt the mexican mafia is any more ruthless than the columbian or jamaican druglords who have been peddling their wares on our streets and using south florida as the point of entry for their goods for the past 20 years. you think the mexican mafia is special? think again.

Bart

02-25-2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
Exactly! But it wouldn't be as cool:cool:

the worse thing that has ever happened to me is my car was stolen on new years eve. 3 weeks later, the insurance company cut me a check and i bought an even nicer car than i had before. thank you mr. car thief where ever you are. LOL

retdetsgt

02-25-2004, 02:11 PM

I'm gonna bail out of this discussion. Nobody is going to convince the true believers of packing 24-7 anything different. I have good friends on both sides of the fence. One pretty good buddy of mine was carrying three guns when he got married!

Personally, if I were that concerned about needing a gun 24-7, I'd have done something else for a living. I was into officer safety, etc when I was on the clock. I'm proud of the work I did and am willing to compare the quality and quanitity to anybody on this board. I might have been outdone, but I'm confident I'd have made honorable mention at least.;) But I refused to let any degree of paranoia run my life when I was on my own time. I never allowed my identity as a cop take over my whole being. Some relish that and that's okay with me too.

I generally don't get into these until somebody berates others for NOT carrying a gun off duty, usually implying that they are less than bright, patriotic, whatever adjective you want. I survived 27 years of police work, generally not carrying off duty and several friends of mine did the same with zero repercussions... Others carried and still do everytime they leave their house. They've had the same results we did. Nada. Lucky? Not really. The odds were well in our favor. Yeah, I could have come across a situation where I wished I had my gun, but I could have been hit by lightning too. The chances are probably about the same.

And I know a lot of cops that were killed off duty too. None by gunfire from a bad guy though. Most were car wrecks or suicide.

If you want to carry, cool. That's your right, please do. And if you need to rationalize it, that's fine with me too. But don't even imply that people who don't are any less brave, smart, whatever than you are. Some of us just like to be regular people when we're not at work and we do just fine at it.

Rjagger

02-25-2004, 04:06 PM

I thought this was about allowing cops that wanted to carry to be able to do it in all 50 states. I don't remember anything about forcing people to carry one.

Deputy757

02-25-2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
If there are witnesses there who testify that they never saw the guy going for your gun, he was just pounding you with his fists, it's bye bye if you pull it out and shoot him.... And if you pull the gun to bluff him and no one says that the bad guy had any weapon, it won't fly either. The bad guy's motive then is he's afraid for his life because he never intended to introduce deadly force, but you did. You MIGHT pull it off if you have the right jury, but it would be a hell of a risk. And in civil court, you're in a real mess.

Well, this is just another thing we will have to agree to disagree about. There are several cases in which an officer is beaten senseless and either, through the mercy of the person assaulting them (which I don't ever want to rely on), is just horribly beaten or ends up being executed. The training we receive correctly points out that any encounter you have with a bg involves a firearm....YOURS! Therefore, if I end up in a free for all with that person, and I'm on the losing end, it's reasonable to believe that once incapacitated, my firearm could be used against me.

O.C. is justifiable in the face of threats of being assaulted, guns aren't.
I've never said one should use, or threaten the use, of deadly force against someone merely making threats of assault. However, that person doing the threatening is damn sure going to jail. That's not to satisfy any kind of ego dimunition I feel but rather to make sure that the next officer who deals with the guy doesn't end up fighting him because of some sense of power he's gained by making threats and having nothing done about it.

And of course you need to wear a vest on duty because everyone know you're a police officer.
Once again, you skirt the point. You are arguing that the odds of anything requiring you to possess a firearm off duty are so low as to negate the need to carry one. Fine, but the odds of anything requiring you to wear body armor on duty are also low. I mean, after 14 years I've never been shot at or stabbed so why should I think it will happen now? The answer for both is the same. Even though the odds may be low, do I really want to be the long shot that comes in?

What can you offer about off duty then from their research? that was my original question. I was an avid student of on duty officer survival. But off duty was never a problem to me or anyone I knew. What I can offer is that among those considered to be experts in on and off duty survival (Ed Nowicki, Massad Ayoob, Bob Willis, Aaron Westrick etc.), carrying a firearm off duty is just as important as carrying while you are working. Some even advocate carrying cuffs, asp, and radio while off duty. They also advise turning a deaf ear to those (civilian and police alike) who claim that officers who do so are being "paranoid" and "on a power trip". I agree, some parts of the US are certainly more dangerous to police than others. But there have been 11 officers killed by gunfire in the US so far this year, and as far as I can tell, only about half have been from large departments.

Deputy757

02-26-2004, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
And I know a lot of cops that were killed off duty too. None by gunfire from a bad guy though. Most were car wrecks or suicide.

If you want to carry, cool. That's your right, please do. And if you need to rationalize it, that's fine with me too. But don't even imply that people who don't are any less brave, smart, whatever than you are. Some of us just like to be regular people when we're not at work and we do just fine at it.

Here's something for you to rationalize! ;)

According to the DOJ Crime Stats for 1993-2002 and then for the year 2002:

2002: 5 officers were feloniously killed while off duty. This is almost 10% of all officers murdered that year. It's one short of the number murdered while in a two man patrol unit and four more than were murdered while on foot patrol. Of the five murdered, three were in ambush situations.

1993-2002: 84 officers were feloniously killed while off duty. This was 13.2% of all officers murdered during that ten year span. It's the same number as those murdered while in a two man patrol unit and 69 more than those murdered while on foot patrol. Of the 84 murdered, 20 were in ambush situations.

Garbage Man

02-26-2004, 02:43 AM

The fact that one side of this debate cannot make their point without insulting the other only shows how week your arguments are.

Perhap criminals are not more dangerous than before, ( I could do the research but I dont have the time)but the reality is that murder is a moral choice and morality is declining with every generation.

I do not see being a cop as something I am rather than something I do any more than you do. What concerns me is the over generalized idea that because some people have never been accosted off duty means that it doesn't happen. A gun is a tool, use it right and it can be helpfull in some situations. If you belive that you should never carry off duty because you will never need it then you have made a decision to limit your options. It's not being a hot dog or over eager its just logic. It is better to have and not want than to want and not have.

JRT6

02-26-2004, 09:55 AM

Retired..,
Why would you think you were more at risk at home then when making a trip to a stop and rob or whatever. I like that "I won't take a gun to theater with my kids quote'. We've had more than one shooting around here in movie theaters. The "THUGS" around here love to open up on each other during the movies and out in the parking lot. You say you won't carry a gun because of your kids, I say I carry on because my kids. Since when do whack job freaks give free passes because someone has their kids with them? Legally, driving your gun home after work is carrying off duty.

Some guys either truely don't work in a environment where they feel threatened; say a Florida retirement village area, or they do work in a high threat area and fail to recognize it or are complacent.

Bart,
Ditto to you buddy. If you don't like the responses you get then don't post.

I have no problem whatsoever with guys who don't carry off duty. You two guys made it point to tell us who do that we are wrong. That no only were we wrong but, immature, gun happy, and other cheap cliches. Total crap that Bart then tried to diffuse by saying they were only "generalizations" which in the end is even worse. You don't even know me.

I'm done on this topic.

chinchilla

03-04-2004, 11:55 PM

Pity no one reads the constitution anymore. What happened to states having to give full faith and credit to other states?

retdetsgt

03-05-2004, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Garbage Man
The fact that one side of this debate cannot make their point without insulting the other only shows how week your arguments are.

In other words, you can dish it out, but you don't like to take it... You're the one that said I was in left field and it was a good thing I'm retired.... The fact you came up with this outlandish idea that crooks only became dangerous since you became a cop was a bit insulting too. I suspect about the time you retire, young cops will be telling you the same thing you spouted off to me.

retdetsgt

03-05-2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by JRT6
Retired..,
Why would you think you were more at risk at home then when making a trip to a stop and rob or whatever. I like that "I won't take a gun to theater with my kids quote'. We've had more than one shooting around here in movie theaters. The "THUGS" around here love to open up on each other during the movies and out in the parking lot. You say you won't carry a gun because of your kids, I say I carry on because my kids.

I can't think of anything I rather do than get in a gun fight and draw fire towards my kids.... :rolleyes: If something looks like it's going to start, I'm getting my kids out of there in a hurry. The last thing I'm going to do is put them in more danger by drawing attention to me and a gun.

retdetsgt

03-05-2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Deputy757
Here's something for you to rationalize! ;)

1993-2002: 84 officers were feloniously killed while off duty. This was 13.2% of all officers murdered during that ten year span. It's the same number as those murdered while in a two man patrol unit and 69 more than those murdered while on foot patrol. Of the 84 murdered, 20 were in ambush situations.

8.4 per year.... Out of how many officers in the U.S. running around off duty at any given time? Yeah, that should put us all on high alert. How many thousands of people were killed in that same time span by drunk drivers? If you really want to be safe, stay off the roads.

And as far as ambush situations, your gun isn't going to do you much good. The whole point, Deputy, is that if I want to kill you, it doesn't matter if you carry a Glock, an M-16 or a Sidewinder missile. You're never going to have the chance to use it. That's the idea behind an ambush, isn't it? To catch the victim off guard and act before they can react?

Deputy757

03-07-2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
8.4 per year.... Out of how many officers in the U.S. running around off duty at any given time? Yeah, that should put us all on high alert. How many thousands of people were killed in that same time span by drunk drivers? If you really want to be safe, stay off the roads.
Well, by that rationale, why wear the vest? Out of how many on-duty officers running around at any given time, how many are actually shot? I know you don't like this argument, but that doesn't mean it's invalid! What it comes down to is, though the odds are low of you being involved in either scenario, do you want to be one of those that end up in one or the other? If you like playing the odds, then go for it!

And as far as ambush situations, your gun isn't going to do you much good. The whole point, Deputy, is that if I want to kill you, it doesn't matter if you carry a Glock, an M-16 or a Sidewinder missile. You're never going to have the chance to use it. That's the idea behind an ambush, isn't it? To catch the victim off guard and act before they can react?
Talk about fatalistic thinking? Are you actually suggesting that, if ambushed, you have no chance of survival? Well, if you aren't carrying something to defend yourself, I guess you are probably right!

Rjagger

03-07-2004, 09:42 AM

I think most of the time the bad guy gets the first shot.

The only reason that any of us live through it is that they either miss, or choose the wrong weapon.

I think anything that makes the criminal wonder whether or not a potential victim might fight back and hurt them is a good thing. More crime is prevented by that fear then any other.

Bart

03-07-2004, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Rjagger
More crime is prevented by that fear then any other.

hmmmmm.... i didnt know that. where did you obtain those statistics?

6233108

03-07-2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
Heh, I wouldn't bet my lunch money on that scenario.... And you're betting the rest of your life.... You might pull it off, but it's not the slam dunk they told you. If there are witnesses there who testify that they never saw the guy going for your gun, he was just pounding you with his fists, it's bye bye if you pull it out and shoot him.... And if you pull the gun to bluff him and no one says that the bad guy had any weapon, it won't fly either. The bad guy's motive then is he's afraid for his life because he never intended to introduce deadly force, but you did. And he's got a good case when it goes to court. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have just a fist fight in a parking lot one day than have one everyday in the joint. Being a cop in prison isn't something I relish. You MIGHT pull it off if you have the right jury, but it would be a hell of a risk. And in civil court, you're in a real mess.

O.C. is justifiable in the face of threats of being assaulted, guns aren't.

Once something like that starts, police have no special rights other than being able to possess the gun. You can't shoot anyone an armed civilian can't shoot.

We had a Cleveland Copper a few years back shoot and kill a 6'4" 290lbs. dude who was threatening him. Dude said "I am going to take your gun away and kill you with it" Dude kept advancing on the 5'9" 150 lbs. cop. The cop shot dude dead azz in his tracks, powder burns proved distance and witnesses proved officer seemed very fearful of the dude's threats being realized if he got to him. Officer was ruled justified by Grand Jury and no civil action followed.

retdetsgt

03-07-2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by 6233108
We had a Cleveland Copper a few years back shoot and kill a 6'4" 290lbs. dude who was threatening him. Dude said "I am going to take your gun away and kill you with it" Dude kept advancing on the 5'9" 150 lbs. cop. The cop shot dude dead azz in his tracks, powder burns proved distance and witnesses proved officer seemed very fearful of the dude's threats being realized if he got to him. Officer was ruled justified by Grand Jury and no civil action followed.

I can understand that. The threat of taking the gun away and killing him was a threat of deadly force. What would have happened though if the 6'4" 290 lb guy had never mentioned a word about the gun and never threated to kill him? You're still walking a fine line.

Frank Booth

03-07-2004, 09:40 PM

How come cops who carry guns off-duty don't wear body armor off-duty? Isn't it better to have on and not need than to need and not have on?

Garbage Man

03-07-2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Frank Booth
How come cops who carry guns off-duty don't wear body armor off-duty? Isn't it better to have on and not need than to need and not have on?

Because we hate wearing it on duty. If there was a comfortable bulletproof vest then maybe some would. But then maybe that guy who wears a baton off duty wears his vest :).

Look Frank, it

retdetsgt

03-08-2004, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Deputy757

And as far as ambush situations, your gun isn't going to do you much good. The whole point, Deputy, is that if I want to kill you, it doesn't matter if you carry a Glock, an M-16 or a Sidewinder missile. You're never going to have the chance to use it. That's the idea behind an ambush, isn't it? To catch the victim off guard and act before they can react?
Talk about fatalistic thinking? Are you actually suggesting that, if ambushed, you have no chance of survival? Well, if you aren't carrying something to defend yourself, I guess you are probably right!

Maybe you have a different idea of what an ambush is than I do. If I'm going to ambush you, you'll never see me. That's the whole idea of an ambush. You don't see them before they shoot, even an M-16 isn't going to help you.

By the way, over 400 people were killed between 1992 and 2001 in loading dock accidents.... It's nearly 5 times more dangerous to be on a loading dock than be an off duty cop. That's the point I'm trying to make. Carrying off duty is fine, but being an off duty cop is not nearly as dangerous as some are trying to protray it.

retdetsgt

03-08-2004, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Rjagger
[B]I think most of the time the bad guy gets the first shot.

The only reason that any of us live through it is that they either miss, or choose the wrong weapon.
B]

But these are situations where the bad guy hadn't been planning to kill the officer all along. These were situations where they thought they were protecting themselves from arrest and it was spur of the moment. Even the average bad guy who PLANS to kill one of us is going to use the right weapon and probably not miss.... Not many people survive assassinations.

Deputy757

03-08-2004, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
Maybe you have a different idea of what an ambush is than I do. If I'm going to ambush you, you'll never see me. That's the whole idea of an ambush. You don't see them before they shoot, even an M-16 isn't going to help you.
I agree. An ambush is certainly a very bad scenario to be in for the reasons that you have listed. But just because you are surprised doesn't mean that you have to lose. Even if you are hit, the odds are that you will survive as long as you maintain the right attitude (depending of course on the seriousness of the injury). So like Garbage Man has pointed out, if you limit your ability to fight back, you have only yourself to blame.

By the way, over 400 people were killed between 1992 and 2001 in loading dock accidents.... It's nearly 5 times more dangerous to be on a loading dock than be an off duty cop. That's the point I'm trying to make. Carrying off duty is fine, but being an off duty cop is not nearly as dangerous as some are trying to protray it.

Again, I agree. If you simply look at the numbers and work out the odds, you come away with the idea that nothing life threatening will ever happen to you off duty. But I don't want to be one of the long shots that come in. Also, this premise does not take into account the number of off duty incidents where the officer came out the victor because he/she was armed and able to defend themselves. Further, shouldn't we look at the number of civilians that are the victims of rape, robbery, and murder (involving a stranger)since any one of them could have been an off duty officer?

SinePari

03-08-2004, 06:44 AM

You see? Now why couldn't you, Deputy757 and G-Man give these points on the "ask a cop/ hr218" thread?

Instead I got hung up with Invisiblecop (ugh) and it turned into a ****ing contest. But here, you guys bring up some great points.

Next time, don't just hide here in the sqad room, and use your knowledge to educated guys like me on the other boards.

Cheers.

retdetsgt

03-08-2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Deputy757

Again, I agree. If you simply look at the numbers and work out the odds, you come away with the idea that nothing life threatening will ever happen to you off duty. But I don't want to be one of the long shots that come in. Also, this premise does not take into account the number of off duty incidents where the officer came out the victor because he/she was armed and able to defend themselves. Further, shouldn't we look at the number of civilians that are the victims of rape, robbery, and murder (involving a stranger)since any one of them could have been an off duty officer?

I understand your point and agree. If someone wants to carry a gun, that's fine. But often it's protrayed as something that is absolutely necessary and anyone who doesn't is a fool and that's where I disagree. And I'm NOT saying that anyone who does carry is a fool.

I didn't work for a huge dept, but it was about 1000 sworn, but the area is about a million people and if you count all the cops in the zone it's probably about 1500. It was small enough that any off duty incident anybody had got passed around the dept quickly. We had few secrets. In my 27 years, I can remember maybe half a dozen times someone needed to pull a gun off duty. One was a very good shooting, one was pretty shaky (we never found the gun the bad guy supposed had and threw into some bushes). In another, a black off duty sgt killed a white car prowler. I don't know all the details, but from what I did hear, it kinda stunk. Consensus is he skated because of his race and the race of the car prowler. And "needed" might be exaggerated where shots weren't fired, possibly in some they could have just walked away.

And granted, there are parts of town that I wouldn't get out of my car today without a gun. But I never need to go there.

Another thing that I hear is using to the gun to protect your family when you're out somewhere. If my family is in danger, the last thing I want to do is something that will draw fire towards them. My first and primary goal is going to be to get them out of the area to safety. And since their instinct is going to be to stay near me, pulling a gun is likely to draw that fire.

And my idea of an ambush is to pull up beside you in a car with someone else driving, laying a double barrel shotgun with .00 buck on the door and separating your head from your torso. It ain't that hard to do and the gun in your waistband will be found there. I've worked enough homicides to know that if someone wants you dead, you'll be dead. And if they know you carry a gun, they'll compensate for that. But that's a rare thing for police, given the numbers you posted.

And again, yeah, I felt in danger for a year or so when I was working dope and I carried 24-7 and slept with a shotgun by my bed. But I knew that I was possibly in jepordy and acted accordingly. When the ordeal was over, I went back to living a normal life like everyone else. I suspect that the cops that were killed off duty probably knew that someone was possibly after them. Very, very few people are going to say, "There's the cop that gave me the ticket, let's kill him!"

And few cops have the victim mentality to be victims. Know what I mean? Few people are the victim of one violent crime in their life. If you look at their sheet, they've usually been victims of other crimes. Some people seem to have "victim" written across their forehead. Cops don't have that. They don't carry themselves like victims. When a cop goes UC, one of the things they have to do in order to be successful is quit displaying the confidence we normally emit. That's what makes a lot of dopers suspicious of new UC's. They act like cops even in raggedity clothes. The odds of a cop being a victim of a rape or a mugging is going to be slim, armed or not.

Again, if someone wants to carry 24-7, that's perfectly okay with me, but the numbers, odds, whatever you want to call it don't add up that others should be chastised for not.